INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directlyfrom the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are. in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quaUt)' of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrationsand photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuingfrom left to right in equal sections withsmall overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back ofthe book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. U-M-I University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. MI 48106·1346 USA 313 761·4700 800521·0600 .. - - -------- .-- -_._-------~------- Order Number 9030561 A theoretical and pragmatic application of paradigmatic behavlorlsms Screening and identification of high potential/underachievers currently in regular education Hishinuma, Earl Shigemi, Ph.D. University of Hawaii, 1990 U·M·I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - - ------------- -------~---~------- A THEORETICAL AND PRAGMATIC APPLICATION OF PARADIGMATIC BEHAVIORISM: SCREENING AND IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH POTENTIAL/UNDERACHIEVERS CURRENTLY IN REGULAR EDUCATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAVAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY HAY 1990 By Earl Shigemi Hishinuma Dissertation Committee: Karl A. Minke, Chairman Elaine M. Heiby James R. Patton Arthur V. Staats Kelvin K. Young iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere gratitude is extended to my dissertation committee members: Drs. Karl A. Minke (Chairperson), Elaine M. Heiby, James R. Patton, Arthur W. Staats, and Kelvin K. Young. The time and effort they expended not only on this project, but the many other endeavors for which they have provided guidance and support have been instrumental in leading up to this dissertation. Acknowledgement is made to Dr. Velma Kameoka as well for whom her early commitment to serve on my dissertation committee did not come to fruition only due to the extension of my doctoral schedule. In the process of collecting and organizing the various data sets utilized, I am most appreciative to several individuals and institutions for their open cooperation and dedication to the importance of research. Barrett B. McCandless, Executive Director of ASSETS School in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, allowed access to student files on a confidential basis thus providing this study with the essential high potential/underachieving sample. In addition, she was highly supportive throughout allowing me an opportunity to gain experience and work out an adjustable working schedule to complete my dissertatiou requirements. Complementing her understanding and supportive efforts were the Multidisciplinary Team Members and staff of ASSETS. Dr. Selvin Chin-Chance, Director of Testing (Test Development Section) of the Hawaii State Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Branch, Honolulu, Hawaii, was instrumental in providing one iv of the regular-education control groups. His courteous, conscientious, and timely correspondence was most appreciated. The professionals at Le Jardin Academy in Kailua, Hawaii, were likewise, most cooperative in not only providing for one of the control groups, but they were also willing to participate in a possible follow-up study involving direct assessment and intervention with their students. Hs. Jean Bebb, Head of the Lower School and Director of Admissions, was the contact person and I am grateful for the time and effort she expended in assisting me. Although the data set obtained from Dr. Brian Stone of the Psychological Corporation (San Antonio, Texas) was not utilized in this dissertation investigation, his sincere and timely efforts were encouraging and appreciated. A fellow doctoral student, Robert Yamakawa, also assisted in the graphics and in serving as a computer specialist for spontaneous questions. v ABSTRACT The purposes of the present investigation were (1) to provide the field of high potential/underachievers with a unified theory that is heuristic in its manner of explaining current phenomena and in anticipating potential problems, (2) to suggest a practical device for screening of the low-incidence, high potential/underachieving populati?n with the goal of better serving these individuals, and (3) to delineate important ramifications of the present analysis. As a result of the application of a paradigmatic-behavioral approach (Staats, 1963, 1975) to the underidentification problem of high potential/underachievers, an experiment was conducted with the purpose of developing a screening strategy and device. The investigation involved comparing three groups of subjects: (1) high potential/underachievement, (2) high potential, and (3) regular education. These groups were contrasted on four psychometric measures of "achievement" based on the Stanford Achievement Test series: (1) Total Listening Comprehension, (2) Total Reading, (3) Total Language, and (4) Total Math. In addition, a discriminant analysis was conducted on the subjects with high potentls1!underachieV2mant and those in rezular education. The results of these analyses were consistent and supportive of the paradigmatic-behavioral predictions: (1) High potential/underachievers scored higher on the Total Listening Comprehension composite as compared to an average of the Total Reading, ----------_._.- - vi Total Language, and Total Math scores; the reverse relationship existed for the students who were high potential and those from regular education. (2) On the Total Listening Comprehension measure, children from regular education scored significantly lower than the high potential/underachievers and the high potential. (3) In contrast, for the average of the Total Reading, Total Language, and Total Hath scores, the high-potential group performed significantly higher than both the high-potential/underachieving and regular-education samples. (4) Overall, the high-potential group scored significantly higher than the high-potential/underachievers and the subjects from regular education. (5) Of the four Total tests, the discriminant analysis revealed that the Total Listening Comprehension composite contributed the most to predicting group affiliation. A 88% "hit rate" was obtained. The analysis concluded with the implications and advantages of unified positivism and paradigmatic behaviorism. Specific to this investigation was the development of a practical screening device. Broader ramifications were discussed. v11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11i ABSTRACT v LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS • xi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Levels of analysis •••••••••• 1 High potential/underachiever: An overview 2 CHAPTER II. PHILOSOPHICAL-THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL-PRAGMATIC CRITIQUE ••••••••••••••••• 26 Philosophical-theoretical analysis 26 Empirical-pragmatic analysis 29 CHAPTER III. PARADIGMATIC-BEHAVIORAL THEORY AND ANALYSIS • 44 History and status •••••••••••••• •• 44 Basic tenets and application to high potential/ underachievers •••••••••••••• 44 CHAPTER IV. PARADIGMATIC-BEHAVIORAL APPLICATION TO THE UNDERIDENTIFICATION PROBLEM •••••••• 13 Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test. 13 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) series 15 Critique of utilizing standardized tests ••• •• 93 Preliminary empirical support of the SAT as a screening device •••• 94 CHAPTER V. METHOD 97 Subjects •• •• 98 Procedures and design • 102 CHAPTER VI. RESULTS........ 103 Test for selection bias in the eA~erimental/high­ potential/underachieving group •• -•••••• 103 Analysis of variance ••••••••••• 103 Discriminant analysis •••••• 119 - - ----------~-- viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION • • • • • • • • • • • 123 Unified theoretical framework and paradigmatic behaviorism • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 123 Application of paradigmatic behaviorism to the underidentification problem • 124 Advantages and implications ••••• 129 Conclusion ••••••• 140 APPENDIX A. STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT) LEVELS AND SUBTEST DESCRIPTIONS ••••••••••••••••• •• 141 APPENDIX B. STANDARDIZED SCORES AND ACTUAL DISCRIMINANT SCORES •••••••• 154 REFERENCES 160 - - ._---------- .ix LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 1 Characteristics of High Potential/Underachievers 19 2 Assessment Practices for High Potential/Underachievers 22 3 Deficit and Inappropriate Behaviors for the Emotional­ Motivational Basic Behavioral Repertoire ••• ••• 53 4 Deficit and Inappropriate Behaviors for the Sensory- Motor Basic Behavioral Repertoire •••••• 54 5 Deficit and Inappropriate Behaviors for the Language- Cognitive Basic Behavioral Repertoire